Have an opinion on the budget? The NDP wants to hear from you

The New Democratic Party unveiled a new step Tuesday in its plan to combat the government’s omnibus budget implementation bill, C-38, and hit out at the finance minister for his comments on upcoming changes to employment insurance.

In public consultations across the country and via a new website, the NDP said it wants to give Canadians a voice on the changes that will come with the adoption of the legislation – a voice NDP House leader Nathan Cullen told reporters is “being limited and shut out by this government.”

NDP finance critic Peggy Nash said she does not want this to become the new standard. “This bill is simply too big and too diverse to be examined by the finance committee,” she said. “We’re going to deconstruct this bill so that Canadians have a chance to look at it.”

However, the NDP was vague on the details as to how that would happen beyond the website and a first meeting set for Wednesday in Ottawa where the party promised “testimony from expert witnesses” that would be open to the public. The dates and specifics will come, Cullen said.

He also added the NDP is willing to hear from all points of view, including from those who agree the budget is a good one. However, when it launched, the website asked users to comment on how the budget will “hurt your family or community.”

Cullen disagreed that a desired tone had already been set on the website.

“There’s no way to set tone with this,” he said. “The idea of having this conversation as a two-way conversation rather than the one-way monologue we get from Stephen Harper is the point.”

Apart from those elements in C-38 that will change environmental regulation or the eventual age of eligibility for old-age security, the opposition is increasingly raising concern over the looming changes to employment insurance.

With the bill, the government will set forth new, tougher guidelines on those who are looking for work and the type of job someone on EI must consider. The bill takes out definitions surrounding what jobs an EI recipient can refuse on the basis that they are “not suitable” for reasons of pay, work conditions or skill set.

However, the government has yet to define what will now be considered a suitable job for those looking, and the opposition fears that it could force some to either take employment that is unsuitable or even perhaps difficult to access geographically.

On Monday, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty told reporters “there is no bad job, the only bad job is not having a job.”

Nash said Tuesday that kind of thinking, “doesn’t make good economic sense.”

“It’s about using the skills we have in the best way possible. Why would we squander the skills that we already have?” she asked reporters. “The government would be better served to help people find jobs where they can use their skill set or to upgrade those skills to get the jobs that are available, rather than forcing them to abandon their skills and take any job available.”

“There is a job of public relations to be done here in terms of making sure Canadians are aware of it,” he said, though he noted that Flaherty’s comments Monday show the government “has signaled very clearly that it’s not in the mood to listen.”

He also said the Liberals still plan to bring forward report stage amendments on each clause of the bill when the bill returns to the House after its time at committee.